Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm
amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation. In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first principles. A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response errors can never be eliminated. This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). Graham |
#2
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Pooh Bear wrote
As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation Eh? Where? Who thinks that? ... Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term [gain] is also variable. ... This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). Er...falsely in your case I'm afraid. cheers, Ian |
#3
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Ian Iveson wrote: Pooh Bear wrote As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation Eh? Where? Who thinks that? Yeah, when I saw that I wondered who decided it was safe to let the fat Graham "Poopie" Stevenson near the kindergarten. Social Services will later claim they didn't know about his nickname... Andre Jute ... Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term [gain] is also variable. ... This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). Er...falsely in your case I'm afraid. cheers, Ian |
#4
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/K...dre%20Jute.htm
and scroll down to the piccie Pooh Bear wrote: In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. |
#5
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Ian Iveson wrote: Pooh Bear wrote As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation Eh? Where? Who thinks that? Apparently Mr Joot. Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term [gain] is also variable. ... This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). Er...falsely in your case I'm afraid. You don't understand why a cathode follower has a voltage gain of ~ 1 ? The total absence of any sensible understanding of circuit theory here is staggering. Graham |
#6
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
In article , Pooh Bear
wrote: As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation. In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first principles. A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. Isn't the same also true for transistors, substituting the word collector for plate? Surf my web pages at, http://users.rcn.com/jbyrns/ |
#7
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... : As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm : amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain : of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock : equation. : : In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. : : Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a : loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. : : Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit : configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first : principles. : : A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. : Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. : : The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response : errors can never be eliminated. : : This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. : Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit : operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). : : Graham : Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy o, btw, we know Rp is a dynamic, current dependent impedance with ul or triodes in pp, that is of no concern as it balances out and as long as that stays well below reflected impedance it is close enough to a 'perfect voltage driven loudspeaker'. with se you can make the change in Rp small by using a high current bias, then using a transformer that will give a reflected impedance well above Rp-avg., no problems, either so what was ya gonna say ? |
#8
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Ruud Broens wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... : As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm : amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain : of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock : equation. : : In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. : : Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a : loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. : : Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit : configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first : principles. : : A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. : Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. : : The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response : errors can never be eliminated. : : This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. : Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit : operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). : : Graham : Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy o, btw, we know Rp is a dynamic, current dependent impedance with ul or triodes in pp, that is of no concern as it balances out and as long as that stays well below reflected impedance it is close enough to a 'perfect voltage driven loudspeaker'. with se you can make the change in Rp small by using a high current bias, then using a transformer that will give a reflected impedance well above Rp-avg., no problems, either I've told Poopie that at least five times already. He's a celebrity of the remedial class, a slow learner par excellence. "High current bias" -- high current, period. It is ten years ago now that I was first flamed by "engineers" for pointing out that driving an ZNFB 845 with a miserable little 12AX7 is incompetent design, that a minimum of 20mA drive current is essential. About the same time I wrote about the advantages, and sometimes necessity, of high current quiescent operating points in SE so often that I coined the acronym HCHVHL to save typing the words "high current high voltage high load" over and over. The five years of flaming from the Magnequest Scum in the middle 1990s that wrecked first the Joenet and then RAT originated directly in my Glass Audio editorial asking why high impedance plate loads was a taboo subject in DIY tube amps. (I soon found out! It was because Magnequest at the time made nothing except low impedane OPT!) The Magnequest Scum and their outriders included platoons of "engineers" who clearly didn't understand the principles of SE tube operation, as concisely described by Rudy. I am not surprised to discover that Poopie Stevenson, even -- or perhaps especially -- if he is a solid state designer as he claims, doesn't understand what the hell is going on with the tube. These are subtleties learned only by constant experience building prototypes and measuring them, and spending years with the extensive literature; solid state preconceptions are luggage best jettisoned immediately one turns to tubes and all the more so in DHT, SE and Class A1, which are all anomalies outside the education and general mainstream experience of those now fifty years old and over. (Patrick won't object to me observing that what makes him so good is that he came to tubes late in life without the baggage of a formal electronics education, with the consequence that his mind was blank slate without solid state preconceptions. It is that baggage which again and again sinks "engineers" who come on RAT and start fanning their diploma and in some cases -- e.g. Pinkerton's early career before he sold his soul to become the boss postman of spam -- even quality experience.) I should also observe that in the threads which gave rise to Graham Stevenson's hectoring little lecture above, I several times clearly posited an example of 300B loaded with a 5K6 transformer. 300B plate impedance at modern operating bias settings is c625 ohm (the nominal 700R the usual googling "experts" cite is taken under vintage conditions that don't apply to hi-fi), so Ro is 0.89 ohm. That's respectable for SE with zero negative feedback, but in fact the dynamic situation is far, far better than this static quiescent snapshot because even with zero global feedback the 300B has c14dB of internal local feedback and, furthermore, a proper SETH DHT amp is anyway bandwidth-limited so that the speaker presents a much friendlier dynamic load than the nominal specsheet case the "engineers" like to cite with such wide-eyed horror. The test of the pudding is in the eating. It seems to me Graham "Pooh Bear" Stevenson either doesn't understand how tubes work or he didn't run the numbers before he started shooting from the hip as a reflex of his vitriolic hatred of me. so what was ya gonna say ? The problem with Stevenson is that he talks and talks without ever listening. I have no hope for him. He will never be a useful contributor to RAT; he's a slow learner. This is a matter of some regret, because we could do with a humble, unimaginative (just the fax, mam, we'll do the flights of fancy) textbook engineer to explain basics to newbies and do some of the theoretical legwork for the rest of us. What was so great about the some of the older engineers, gentlemen all, that we used to have, Alan Douglas and a whole crowd of similar skill and outlook, was that they didn't throw their undoubted weight around but clearly considered themselves facilitators in the dissemination of knowledge and thus to the rest of us. Oh well, I suppose the generous-spirited principles of the ARRL were bound to die when the Internet widened the user-base. Andre Jute Visit Jute on Amps at http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/ wonderfully well written and reasoned information for the tube audio constructor" John Broskie TubeCAD & GlassWare "an unbelievably comprehensive web site containing vital gems of wisdom" Stuart Perry Hi-Fi News & Record Review |
#9
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual exasperation with these two. Andre Jute Here's Poopie's hectoring kindergarten lecture and Ruud's full response for context: Ruud Broens wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... : As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm : amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain : of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock : equation. : : In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. : : Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a : loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. : : Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit : configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first : principles. : : A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. : Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. : : The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response : errors can never be eliminated. : : This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. : Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit : operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). : : Graham : Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy o, btw, we know Rp is a dynamic, current dependent impedance with ul or triodes in pp, that is of no concern as it balances out and as long as that stays well below reflected impedance it is close enough to a 'perfect voltage driven loudspeaker'. with se you can make the change in Rp small by using a high current bias, then using a transformer that will give a reflected impedance well above Rp-avg., no problems, either so what was ya gonna say ? |
#10
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
"Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com... Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the ethics of scholastic debate. Now permit me to ask a polite question. With respect to the argment on SET frequency response, what is the impedance of the speakers you drive? Is it on the order of 100 ohms, or in excess? With all due respect, speakers in the normal range of mainstream commercial offerings do experience frequency response variations due to nonconstant impedance over the audio band. One way of dealing with this is with a Zobel network: http://www.trueaudio.com/st_zobel.htm Let's have an intelligent discussion. I am interested in learning what you do. |
#11
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequencyresponse
Andre Jute wrote: Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual exasperation with these two. You're very mistaken about my education in that case. Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated, waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a postage stamp. Graham |
#12
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
Pooh Bear, Fattest DJ in the Universe, wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual exasperation with these two. You're very mistaken about my education in that case. Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated, waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a postage stamp. Graham And one might add a couple of things about Graham Poopie Stevenson: 1. Debating in a civilized manner in school and college, where young passions migh flare, is excellent training in anger management and channelling into socially productive activies. Instead, having missed out, he is a disruptive influence. 2. Zero culture-damaged hearing syndrome. The only music at Poopie Stevenson's jumped-up provincial poly was very loud rock played in a hall with concrete beams in the ceiling. Draw your own conclusion. Andre Jute |
#13
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
Robert Morein wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com... Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the ethics of scholastic debate. In the States that may be true. But I doubt Krueger would be let into a political campaign at any level; he is simply too crude. In Britain elections are amazingly clean. There are laws, strictly enforced about personal smear campaigns on opposition pols. So Stevenson didn't learn his dirty tricks in British politics either. Perhaps Krueger and Poopie are just clumsy and abusive by character, that is, to everyone. I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the usual slime. Andre Jute |
#15
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequencyresponse
Andre Jute wrote: Pooh Bear, Fattest DJ in the Universe, wrote: Andre Jute wrote: Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual exasperation with these two. You're very mistaken about my education in that case. Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated, waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a postage stamp. Graham And one might add a couple of things about Graham Poopie Stevenson: 1. Debating in a civilized manner in school and college, where young passions migh flare, is excellent training in anger management and channelling into socially productive activies. Instead, having missed out, he is a disruptive influence. I reserve my wrath for those who truly deserve it. I am remarkably tolerant in my everyday life but I have little tolerance for charlatans like yourself. 2. Zero culture-damaged hearing syndrome. The only music at Poopie Stevenson's jumped-up provincial poly was very loud rock played in a hall with concrete beams in the ceiling. Draw your own conclusion. Typical idiotic rant based on nothing of substance. One thing about being the sound engineer is that you're actually a long way from the speakers btw ! I don't believe in using *excessive* spl anyway. I have indeed walked away from events I considered stupidly loud. The only 'poly' I've been to was the local one at Hatfield where some friends were studying. It had a decent SU bar and some good gigs in the various halls. I went to London University. The school wanted me to apply to Cambridge but as I wasn't gay it didn't appeal. Graham |
#16
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
John Byrns wrote: In article , Pooh Bear wrote: As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock equation. In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first principles. A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. Isn't the same also true for transistors, substituting the word collector for plate? If transistor amps were collector loaded - then yes. Most audio SS amps today use an emitter follower output. That arrangement simply doesn't care about the load Z. It's important that the emitter follower has enough current gain though ( use darlingtons or triples ) or the load might still 'reflect' back to the previous voltage gain stage and possibly cause stability problems ( usually phase angle related ). Those that do have a collector load use serious nfb to correct the issue of response errors. Graham |
#17
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Ruud Broens wrote: "Pooh Bear" wrote in message ... : As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm : amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain : of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock : equation. : : In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. : : Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a : loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable. : : Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit : configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first : principles. : : A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. : Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. : : The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response : errors can never be eliminated. : : This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. : Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit : operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). : : Graham : Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy o, btw, we know Rp is a dynamic, current dependent impedance with ul or triodes in pp, that is of no concern as it balances out and as long as that stays well below reflected impedance it is close enough to a 'perfect voltage driven loudspeaker'. with se you can make the change in Rp small by using a high current bias, then using a transformer that will give a reflected impedance well above Rp-avg., no problems, either so what was ya gonna say ? Depends on your view of 'close enough'. Yes - at the expense of total power output you can adjust the turns ratio of the output transformer so as to make the output Z appear lower but you're into a game of diminishing returns since you can't realistically get the output Z of a non-nfb SET to a figure that's genuinely not going to give freq response errors. Only a topology with a naturally low Z can do that.. It's a fundamental flaw of the topology. You can tinker with it to your heart's content but it won't go way. Why not consider my "new approach to the SET" ? Fixes the problem at source. Graham |
#18
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequencyresponse
Robert Morein wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com... Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the ethics of scholastic debate. Now permit me to ask a polite question. With respect to the argment on SET frequency response, what is the impedance of the speakers you drive? Is it on the order of 100 ohms, or in excess? With all due respect, speakers in the normal range of mainstream commercial offerings do experience frequency response variations due to nonconstant impedance over the audio band. One way of dealing with this is with a Zobel network: http://www.trueaudio.com/st_zobel.htm Let's have an intelligent discussion. I am interested in learning what you do. 100 ohms ? You're kidding surely ? You might be interested to know that I helped design a speaker that was 'impedance corrected' so as to maintain a very close to nominal 8 ohms over the entire audio frequency range. It did indeed use something similar to 'Zobels'. Not much you can do about the LF resonance though. Graham |
#19
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 00:56:47 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote: Depends on your view of 'close enough'. Yes - at the expense of total power output you can adjust the turns ratio of the output transformer so as to make the output Z appear lower but you're into a game of diminishing returns since you can't realistically get the output Z of a non-nfb SET to a figure that's genuinely not going to give freq response errors. Only a topology with a naturally low Z can do that.. For another conclusion from a perhaps surprising source, the current speaker wire thread includes some detail by Don Pierce regarding necessary and actual "damping ratios". R.a.t's should read this too, BTW; good, solid stuff and useful for any fundamental design work. To compare to what I consider a practical SET design, a number 845 triode into a 10,000 ohm nominal plate load, factor in the working plate resistance if about 1/6 nominal load. ******Over the whole load line****** Why not consider my "new approach to the SET" ? Fixes the problem at source. Cool beans! What is it? Breathless anticipation subverted in an effort to look cool, like Charlie Brown at the water cooler, Chris Hornbeck "Angels are, dreaming of you" - Sonic Youth |
#20
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 02:29:26 GMT, Chris Hornbeck
wrote: Who edits this crapola anyway? Sorry, Let me try again: For another conclusion from a perhaps surprising source, the current speaker wire thread in r.a.p includes some detail by Don Pierce regarding necessary and actual "damping ratios". R.a.t's should read this too, BTW; good, solid stuff and useful for any fundamental design work. Chris Hornbeck "Angels are, dreaming of you" - Sonic Youth |
#21
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:22:32 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote: In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Only for a constant-current (high-Z) source. For triodes, or other lower impedance sources, the source dominates. For *both* cases, the parallel of both impedances is the magic number, natch. And, of course, these things are true independent of topology, active device, or even being electronic. They're fundamental to power delivery in water hoses too. Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "Angels are, dreaming of you" - Sonic Youth |
#22
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:22:32 +0000, Pooh Bear
wrote: A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load. Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means. The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response errors can never be eliminated. This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit. Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ). On closer reading, I see a glaring error here. Heat of the moment, surely, Thanks, as always, Chris Hornbeck "Angels are, dreaming of you" - Sonic Youth |
#23
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Does it think what I think it means Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this. Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the "debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-) |
#24
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
Gain equations : ref frequency response
Chris Hornbeck wrote: On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 08:22:32 +0000, Pooh Bear wrote: In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term. Only for a constant-current (high-Z) source. For triodes, or other lower impedance sources, the source dominates. For *both* cases, the parallel of both impedances is the magic number, natch. And, of course, these things are true independent of topology, active device, or even being electronic. They're fundamental to power delivery in water hoses too. My apologies. I was simplifying. Graham |
#25
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
On 19 Dec 2005 15:59:38 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:
Robert Morein wrote: "Andre Jute" wrote in message ups.com... Ruud Broens wrote: Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here, start with dispensing with the debating trade technique, then learn how to write coherently :-) Rudy "debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate debating technique? Please advise. It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the ethics of scholastic debate. In the States that may be true. But I doubt Krueger would be let into a political campaign at any level; he is simply too crude. In Britain elections are amazingly clean. There are laws, strictly enforced about personal smear campaigns on opposition pols. So Stevenson didn't learn his dirty tricks in British politics either. Perhaps Krueger and Poopie are just clumsy and abusive by character, that is, to everyone. I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the usual slime. It's sweet when two geniuses meet on the crowded internet. |
#26
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:22:03 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote: I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the usual slime. It's sweet when two geniuses meet on the crowded internet. Very sweet. Yet it's frightening to think what progeny such a union would produce. :-) |
#27
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Does it think what I think it means Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this. Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the "debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb |
#28
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
paul packer wrote: On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Does it think what I think it means Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this. Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the "debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-) Not at all, Paul. That is not a grammatical error, or a mistyping for "that mean", that is a sideswipe at slime. "It", not he or she, indicates that I believe that those who perpetrate these crimes upon civilization, as expressed in audiophile pursuits, are aliens, not humans, and "think" is of course a savagely sarcastic comment on their braindead condition. You'd get further arguing with me that Krueger and Poopie Stevenson and their hangers-on aren't "braindead" because they never had any brains to die, but I'm too nice to think that even of the enemies of fidelity. Even under torture you'll never make me admit I thought such a politically incorrect thing. Andre Jute PS Oh, by the way, Paul, it is politically very incorrect for you, and beside poor manners utterly untypical of an Australian gentleman, to abuse me, a poor stateless immigrant (I was when I became an Australian), whose first language wasn't English, not by half a dozen or so, for not speaking the language "proper". It is furthermore an insult to the man who taught me Latin and Greek (and who christened me the Crown Prince of Chaos, but I've forgiven him that) rather effectively; for that, when I ascended to influence partly because I could make politicians and industrialists believe, without ever telling a lie of course, that I said what they wanted to hear, I had him in his retirement given the rich contract to write the English textbook for all the schools in the country, which made him an instant millionaire. |
#29
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
Dédé Jute wrote :
PS Oh, by the way, Paul, it is politically very incorrect for you, You see Paul, even Dédé agrees with me. -- "Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote. But what's new around here?" Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15 |
#30
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
Robert Morein said: The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb Your participle is dangling. |
#31
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote: Robert Morein said: The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb Your participle is dangling. In your (sick) dreams... |
#32
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Robert Morein said: The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb Your participle is dangling. "At least" my participle is erect. |
#33
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:48 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Does it think what I think it means Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this. Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the "debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb But I like it that way, so there. :-) |
#34
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
Clyde Slick said: The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb Your participle is dangling. "At least" my participle is erect. No proof required. We're happy to take your word on it. |
#35
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote in message ... Clyde Slick said: The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb Your participle is dangling. "At least" my participle is erect. No proof required. We're happy to take your word on it. Your verb is down. |
#36
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
"paul packer" wrote in message ... On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:48 -0500, "Robert Morein" wrote: "paul packer" wrote in message ... On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote: Does it think what I think it means Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this. Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the "debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-) Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb But I like it that way, so there. :-) This is the sort of English up with which I will not put. |
#37
Posted to rec.audio.tubes,rec.audio.opinion
|
|||
|
|||
Eat your verbs
Robert Morein said: This is the sort of English up with which I will not put. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. LOt"S! |
#38
Posted to rec.audio.tubes
|
|||
|
|||
"Debating trade technique" was Gain equations : ref frequency response
Lionel wrote: Dédé Jute wrote : PS Oh, by the way, Paul, it is politically very incorrect for you, You see Paul, even Dédé agrees with me. Pity. I was just starting to think he might be intelligent. :-) |
Reply |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Note to Trevor | Audio Opinions | |||
Topic Police | Pro Audio | |||
DNC Schedule of Events | Pro Audio | |||
Transient response of actively filtered speakers | Tech |